זבחים 66 — parallel

66:1

He need not sever it. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: If so, when it is written in connection with a pit, [And if a man shall open a pit . . .] and not cover it, does that too mean that he need not cover it? — How compare! There, since it is written, the owner of the pit shall make it good. he is [obviously] bound to cover it. But here, consider: it is written, And [the priest] shall bring [offer] it [unto the altar], [whereby] the Writ drew a distinction between a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering. What then is the purpose of ‘he shall not divide it asunder’? Infer from this that he need not sever it. IF HE DRAINED THE BLOOD OF THE BODY. Our Rabbis taught: A burnt-offering [teaches that] even if he drained the blood of the body but did not drain the blood of the head [it is still a valid burnt-offering]. You might think that even if he drained the blood of the head, but not the blood of the body [it is valid]; therefore it states, ‘it is’. How does this imply it? — Said Rabina: It is logical, for most of the blood is found in the body. MISHNAH. IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] FOR THE SAKE OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT. [IF IT IS OFFERED] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING, [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING; [OR] WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING; OR WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE [THE RED LINE]. [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE, IT IS UNFIT. IF A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED ABOVE, WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS FIT; WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT BUT DOES NOT FREE ITS OWNER OF HIS OBLIGATION. [IF HE OFFERS IT] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING; [OR] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE OFFERS IT BELOW, [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE, IT IS UNFIT.

—

66:2

GEMARA. Wherein does he deviate? If we say that he deviates in melikah? Shall we then say that it does not agree with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, who said: I have heard that one severs a bird sin-offering? — But have we not explained that it does not agree with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? — No: [it means] that he deviates in the sprinkling. That too is logical, since the sequel teaches, IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE, EVEN WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE, IT IS UNFIT, [which means] even with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering. Now, wherein does he deviate? If you say that he deviates in melikah, surely a master said: If he performed its melikah on any part of the altar, it is fit? Hence it must surely mean that he deviates in sprinkling, and since the second clause means in sprinkling, the first clause too means in sprinkling! — Why interpret it thus? Each is governed by its own circumstances. IF A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD etc. Wherein does he deviate? If we say, that he deviates in melikah, then when he [the Tanna] teaches in the sequel: ‘All of these do not defile in the gullet, and involve trespass’; shall we say that this does not agree with R. Joshua; for if it agreed with R. Joshua, surely he ruled [that] they do not involve trespass? — Rather, [he deviated] in draining [the blood]. Then consider the subsequent clause: If one offered a burnt-offering of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering. R. Eliezer maintains: It involves trespass; R. Joshua said: It does not involve trespass. Now, wherein did he deviate? If we say, in draining; granted that R. Joshua ruled [thus] where he deviated in melikah, did he rule [thus] in reference to draining? , Hence it must mean, in melikah: then the first and the last clauses refer to melikah, while the middle clause refers to draining? — Yes: the first and the last clauses refer to melikah, while the middle clause refers to draining. MISHNAH. AND ALL OF THESE DO NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET AND INVOLVE TRESPASS, EXCEPT THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHICH WAS OFFERED BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING. IF ONE OFFERED THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD BELOW WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, R. ELIEZER MAINTAINED: IT INVOLVES TRESPASS; R. JOSHUA RULED: IT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS. SAID R. ELIEZER: IF A SIN-OFFERING INVOLVES TRESPASS WHEN [THE PRIEST], DEVIATED IN ITS NAME, THOUGH IT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS WHEN [IT IS OFFERED] IN ITS OWN NAME, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT A BURNT-OFFERING INVOLVES TRESPASS IF HE DEVIATED IN ITS NAME, SEEING THAT IT INVOLVES TRESPASS [WHEN HE OFFERED IT] IN ITS OWN NAME? NO, ANSWERED R. JOSHUA: WHEN YOU SPEAK OF A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE NAME HE ALTERED TO THAT OF A BURNT-OFFERING, [IT INVOLVES TRESPASS] BECAUSE HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT INVOLVES TRESPASS; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF A BURNT-OFFERING WHOSE NAME HE CHANGED TO THAT OF A SIN-OFFERING, SEEING THAT HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS?23

—